A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Sunday, April 22, 2007

Why Doesn't Reid Claim We Have Lost in Afghanistan?

In my recent post about how Harry Reid, I pointed out what I think is a link between Reid's support of the war and his "lost" terminology. Some of the comments led me to wonder why Reid or many other Dems criticize the effort in Afghanistan. There are similar setbacks with the resurgence of the Taliban. According to Wikipedia on the subject the following has taken place in Afghanistan since the Taliban started regrouping:

2006

June 6: A roadside bombing leaves 2 American soldiers killed, the attack took place in the province of nanghar. Also a separate suicide bombing in Khost leaves three US soldiers wounded.[25]

June 15: A bus carrying workers to an American base explodes killing 10 and wounding 15. The explosives were placed on the bus.[26]

July 1: 2 British soldiers are killed when their base came under small arms fire including rocket propelled grenades.[27]

August 8: 4 Canadian NATO soldiers are killed in two separate attacks. And a suicide bomber targeting a NATO convey detonates killing 21 people.[28]

August 20: 3 American soldiers are killed and another 3 are wounded in a battle with Taliban millitants after a roadside bomb hit an American patrol.[29]

September 8: A major suicide car bombing near the US embassy in Kabul kills 18 including 2 US soldiers.[30]

September 10: The governor of Afghanistan's southeastern Paktia province is killed alongside his bodyguard and nephew when a suicide bomber detonates himself beside the governor's car.[31]

October 14: A suicide attack in Kandahar city leaves 8 dead including one NATO soldier.[32]

October 15: 2 Canadian soldiers were killed when Taliban militants attacked NATO troops using small arms fire and rocket propelled grenades.[33]

December 6: A suicide bomber blew himself up outside a security contractor's office killing 7 including 2 Americans, the attack took place south of Afghanistan in Kandahar.[34]

2007

January 23: A suicide bomber blew himself up outside a US base in eastern Afghanistan killing 10 people who were waiting outside the base.[35]

February 2: Taliban forces raided a southern Afghan town destroying the government center and briefly holding some elders captive.[36]

February 19: The Taliban briefly seized a small town in western Afghanistan after police fled the town, the Taliban forces moved in for 30 minutes and seizing 3 vehicles.[37]

February 20: A suicide bomber blew himself up during an opening hospital ceremony injuring 2 NATO soldiers and a hospital worker.[38]

February 27: 23 people are killed when a suicide bomber attacks an American military base in Kabul. The attack took place while US vice president Dick Cheney was in the compound, Cheney was unhurt in the attack and was the intended target of the attack as claimed by the Taliban. The dead included an American soldier, a Korean soldier, and an American contractor.[39]

March 4: A suicide bomber attacks an American convoy which leaves 16 civilians dead in the after-math as the American convey begins to sporadically fire at civilian cars around them. In a separate incident 2 British soldiers were killed when a Taliban rocket was fired on them during clashes in Southern Helmand Province.[40]

March 17: A suicide bomber targeting a Canadian military convoy leaves one dead and 3 injured including one NATO soldier. The attack took place in Kandahar.[41]

March 19: A car bomb blew up near a three-vehicle US embassy convoy injuring many in the convoy.[42]

March 27: 4 police officers are killed in the southern Helmand province after a suicide bomber blew himself up outside a police station. [1]

March 28: A suicide bomber killed a top intelligance officer and 3 others in the capital Kabul.

April 9 6 Canadian soldiers were killed in souther Afghanistan when they struck a roadside bomb. In a separate roadside bombing also in south Afghanistan left another NATO soldier dead and one wounded. In another incident a statement from the talibans spokesperson claimed that they had beheaded a translator for a kidnapped Italian journalist. [3]

April 15: A suicide bomber struck a US-private security firm killing 4 Afghans working for the company. [4]

April 16: A suicide bomber ran onto a police training field and detonating his explosive device killing 10 police officers and wounding dozens of others, the attack took place in the relatively quiet city of Kunduz. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack. [5]

April 22: A suicide bomber blew himself up an eastern city of Afghanistan killing 6. A roadside bomb also hit an Afghan intelligance service vehicle killing all 4 who were inside. [7]

The war in Afghanistan is considered "justified" by even many of the staunchest Dems. Yet five years later we are still fighting against insurgent Taliban fighters and there continues to be loss of life among civilians and our troops. Using the same formula, why doesn't Reid claim we have "lost" in Afghanistan? I think we all know the reason.

Jacob, that is the point I am making. It is nearly universal that Afghanistan was "justified" (except for the code pink types). Even though we have setbacks and a resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, I never hear the Dems criticize it.

I am fine with people being against going into Iraq. I am fine with them thinking Bush, Clinton and both their packs lied about WMD. Just don't say we have lost because you disagree with staying. That is where Reid went wrong.

I do think that they would be critical of Afghanistan if there were no Iraq to kick around. They can accomplish undercutting Bush with Iraq without risking looking more weak on national security by criticizing Afghanistan.

I get the feeling that most people in the U.S. have forgotten about Afghanistan. This is the war we won, right? So why bother wasting concern there when there's so much to be concerned about in Iraq?

And really, we did win in Afghanistan, but we just let our guard down because we had so much work to do in Iraq. The Taliban started rebuilding--as we all knew they would--the poppies started growing again, and bombs started 'ploding.

And there are plenty of critics of the war on the Repub side, too. Why just pick on Reid? All I ever hear here is how the Dems are traitors to the country by criticizing the Pres. How Dems are giving aid and comfort to terrorists by their stances. I want to hear more about how the conservatives are destroying the country... At least pretend to be independent...

And there are plenty of critics of the war on the Repub side, too. Why just pick on Reid?

When they step up and claim we have lost I will criticize them too. Remember I am more conservative than GOP. At the moment I am actually pretty sick of the GOP because they have no spine and too liberal.

All I ever hear here is how the Dems are traitors to the country by criticizing the Pres.It is not just criticism that brands them with the traitor label. It is their continued effort to undercut our troops.

How Dems are giving aid and comfort to terrorists by their stances.Ever heard of Tokyo Rose? The words she said were targeted at discouraging our men and emboldening the enemy. Who do you think is encouraged by the words of the Dems?

I want to hear more about how the conservatives are destroying the country

Of course you do. The question is who are these conservatives in power. There are so few of them. Bush is no conservative. Most of the GOP are not true conservatives. The problems in this country such as the deficit, problems in education, problems with health care, etc. are not due to conservatism. They are due to liberalism that is rampant in both parties.

Ah, I see. So only those who are as far right as YOU can be considered "conservative" when we discuss politics on this board. I getcha. That changes everything. In your opinion, then, terms like "Liberal" and "Conservative" aren't really related to where they stand in relation to the public-at-large "middle-of-the-road" POV, but based on every individual's POV. Good to know.

Things begin to click...

But from what I've heard, the Democrats' current Iraq war funding bill gives the troops even more than ever--and will bring them home--and it's Bush and his people who want to quash it. How are the Dems undercutting our troops then?

Your stance on the Dems being traitors because their criticisms are targeted at "discouraging our troops and und emboldening our enemy"... Do you have proof that this is their aim? Otherwise, your argument is just hyperbole. Also, using that thinking, ANYTIME someone criticizes U.S. policies, it can be considered treason, because it could be construed as encouraging enemies.

Ah, I see. So only those who are as far right as YOU can be considered "conservative" when we discuss politics on this board. I getcha. That changes everything. In your opinion, then, terms like "Liberal" and "Conservative" aren't really related to where they stand in relation to the public-at-large "middle-of-the-road" POV, but based on every individual's POV. Good to know.

Actually, this is a complete perversion of what I said. I do not think conservative and liberal are all that subjective. They are what they are. And certainly they have nothing to do with any middle-of-the-road POV of people. Each issue has a standard conservative and liberal take on it.

From there people take positions either in between or to the exterior fringe on each issue.

Then from there people might take conservative positions on some issues and liberal positions on others. (i.e. social liberal, but fiscal conservative)

When one is not mixed and takes traditional conservative or liberal positions, it is a no brainer. When they take non-traditional or mixed positions then yes it becomes subjective.

The bottom line here is that our fiscal problems in this country cannot be attributed to fiscal conservatism. So to say our problems stem from conservatives is nonsense.

Do you have proof that this is their aim?

I did not say that was their aim. I stated that is the natural effect of such actions. Do you think that during a college basketball season if one of the leaders at the school was constantly going to the press and making public announcements critical of the basketball coach and the team that this would encourage or discourage the team? Do you think under such a situation they would play better or worse? Do you think an announcement over the PA system during an important game claiming the coach "stinks" would help? Do you think the other team would be emboldened by it?

Criticism while our troops are in harms way has just such an effect. That is not hyperbole.

Yet another long comment...It's a logical extension of what you said, not a perversion. Generally, left and right are considered directions along a line, where the far left are the rabid liberals and the far right are the fascist conservatives. Then the closer you get to the center of the line, the more balanced a position you find. You said the 40-something-percent of Republicans in Congress, President Bush, etc. are not conservative because they are less conservative than you. That does not make them non-conservative, however, but more centrist--nevertheless, still right of center and, therefore, conservative.

Also, problems in our economy, education, and health care seem to have much less to do with whether we are fiscally conservative or fiscally liberal than with being fiscally wise--personally, I see the problems in education being due to a crumbling infrastructure than with liberalism. How can a student learn if they have no books, for example? I need to see more infrastructure spending and fewer Alaskan "Bridges to Nowhere" (thank you, Ted Stevens).

Treason requires intent. The liberals and conservatives speaking out against war policy are simply using their Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech--not being traitors.

Also, troops are always in harm's way. That's what they're about--they're soldiers. I'd hope they'd be a little more afraid of the bombs and bullets than with what people on the home front think is the best use of their abilities. Hopefully, they're a little more thick-skinned than you give them credit for. Otherwise we're screwed no matter what we do.

And either way, you're advocating a suspension of free speech if you say that war critics just need to shut up and let the Commandant in Chief do whatever he wants in Iraq. In a free country, that's tantamount to incitement to fascism--which could be construed as treasonous behavior itself.

You seem to have a way of attracting people that want to debate anything that has little or nothing to do, with your post. I have seen more argument changes in one post on your blog, than the toatl number of wardrobe changes at a Madonna concert.

You said the 40-something-percent of Republicans in Congress, President Bush, etc. are not conservative because they are less conservative than you.

There was one statement that alluded to this concept of "more" or "less" conservative. I clarified later. This argument will go nowhere because I see black and white. Choose which is which, but conservatism is what it is and liberalism is what it is. Issue by issue, people are either one way or another. How much they care is the only real variable.

personally, I see the problems in education being due to a crumbling infrastructure than with liberalism.

Perfect example. Our problems in education are not because of a lack of funding. It is because money is spent in unnecessary areas making less money available to do the real business of education. Most of this is due to liberal policies:

- wasteful spending because of special interests - spending funds on illegal immigrants instead of limiting funding to legal citizens and residents. - too many unnecessary classes that are more intended to push an agenda than educate

Use conservative principles during the budgeting process and there will be plenty of money to repair the crumbling infrastructure.

Your comments about the troops needing to be thick skinned are ridiculous. With bombs and bullets coming at them from the front, they don't need the criticism from "home" coming at them from behind.

As for your misguided free speech argument, remember what exactly free speech is and is not. We have free speech when we are not thrown in jail, are not fined or do not have our property confiscated because of what we say or write. Free speech is not the right to be heard. Free speech is not insulation from non-criminal consequences of what we say.

I did not agree with Imus' firing but the firing was not an infringement of his free speech under the 1st amendment.

Harry Reid has the right to say the things he does. I do not think what he is doing is criminal treason, but it is treasonous nontheless. Facing the consequences of what he says is not an infringement of his free speech.

LA, This whole conversation has its roots in the post. If you want to read back and connect the dots, you may also join in on the conversation. If AICS chooses to bring in fresh information in his replies to my comment, then the resulting discussion has a place on the board. Otherwise, readers might assume the discussion was finished.

Your comments, however, add nothing.

And I guess the conversation is basically at an end, anyway, since AICS has made it clear that he has backed himself into the "black-vs-white" defense, but...

All 3 of your education examples of wasteful spending go under the heading of "special interests", of which there are no shortage on either side of the aisle, lib and con, as you would agree.

And look, the troops can handle themselves. I don't worry about them blowing a fuse just because of what's said back home. They're fighting for such a high concept as liberty (supposedly), so they should be able to handle the minor psychic trauma of a senator from Nevada wanting to bring them home.

And "Free speech is not the right to be heard"? I don't even know where to start on that one. You just blew my mind!